IPCC special report: impact of global warming of 1.5C

Second Summer

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Reaction score
8,595
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
The world is heading for very dangerous warming, but keeping below the 1.5C limit is going to require urgent worldwide efforts and cooperation.

Everyone needs to do their part, from national governments down to the individual. So, what can we as individuals do, besides pressure our governments to act?
But it adds that the world cannot meet its target without changes by individuals, urging people to:
  • buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes • use videoconferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product
Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, said Dr Debra Roberts, the IPCC's other co-chair.

"That's a very empowering message for the individual," she said. "This is not about remote science; it is about where we live and work, and it gives us a cue on how we might be able to contribute to that massive change, because everyone is going to have to be involved."
More: Final call to halt 'climate catastrophe' (8. Oct. 2018)
 
Let's hope everyone follows these recomendations which are sound. Thanks for sharing.
 
  • buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes • use video conferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product.
Maybe if they put more emphasises on the above 20 years ago, instead of the scientific community just turning out computer-generated future projections of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, boiling oceans etc which I have noticed very few have happened. The world would be a better place.
 
Just listened to The NY Times Daily Podcast on IPCC's newest report on climate change.

I swear it was exactly like this interview on the the TV show the Newsroom from 2014.

 
  • buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of planes

-Subsidize less meat, milk, cheese and butter and give kids better options for school meals
-invest in electric car infrastructure and subsidies, make communities more walkable and safer to bicycle in
-fix our slow, dilapidated public transportation so people who own cars actually want to use it

I'm pointing out the obvious but it's frustrating to see it framed as a matter of personal decision making, as if the underlying incentives haven't already made the decision for anyone who isn't a hardcore environmentalist.
 
I agree with Blues that scientists have been too slow and shy to suggest actual solutions but I think it´s unfair to blame them for this (it´s not clear from your comment whether you are blaming them or not, you haven´t said). The blame has to fall on the fossil fuel companies, and governments primarily, but also to some extent on all of us as individuals. We need both personal responsibility and systemic change rather than arguing about which is best.

But also the focus on demand side rather than supply side policies tend to focus too much attention on the consumer. We need more supply side policies that tax, regulate or ban fossil fuels.

Here´s a policy I´d like to see. If the US decides it needs to cut emissions by say 6% a year it should pass a law requiring all of the top 100 companies to reduce the carbon intensity of their portfolios or businesses by the same 6% a year. This would require all large banks, investors, pension funds, hedge funds, fossil fuel companies, airlines, airports, factory farm companies, and any just very large company (e.g. Amazon) to cut its emissions by the same 6% a year. This would include a full accounting. Fossil fuel company emissions would be assessed based on all the CO2 later burned by customers even at the tailpipe, and banks would be assessed based on the footprint of the companies they invest in, not the much smaller footprint of their own offices.

Allowances would need to be made. The rules would have to be a bit more complicated than 6% for everyone. Companies that can point to already having taken actions and having a lower carbon intensity might only be required to cut at 4% a year while companies with very high emissions that have to this point taken no meaningful action might have to cut at 8%.

Companies that are required to cut by 6% a year and actually only cut by 1%-5% would be hit with huge fines if they failed to hit the targets. The fines need to be large enough that hitting the targets would be more profitable.

A downside of this system is that the implementation will be somewhat complicated in practice, as there are various factors I haven´t mentioned. However it would be such a powerful tool that I think we perhaps need it, inspite of the lack of simplicity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
-Subsidize less meat, milk, cheese and butter and give kids better options for school meals
The last month the government has been going on about adding a climate tax onto meat and dairy products.
 
The last month the government has been going on about adding a climate tax onto meat and dairy products.
I've talked about this before. it would get less pushback just to end subsidies to meat and milk.
I've never seen an analysis but I bet you could reduce all GHG by eliminating ALL subsidies. (soy and corn too)